OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: DC's gun laws
Thoughts?
The US Supreme Court is grasping the thorny issue of Americans' right to bear arms for the first time in almost 70 years. At issue is a challenge to one of the nation's toughest gun laws - but the justices' ruling could have far wider ramifications.
What is the case before the Supreme Court?
The nine justices are to hear a challenge to one of the toughest gun laws in the nation - a virtual ban on private handgun ownership in the city of Washington DC, passed in 1976.
The case is being brought in the name of security guard Dick Heller, a District of Columbia resident who carries a gun at work and wants to be able to keep it at home for self-defence. He and his backers argue that the ban violates DC citizens' rights.
City officials say the ban is necessary to keep gun violence down, and argue that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution protects a right tied to service in a militia, not an individual right to bear arms.
The challenge to the ban was initially rejected, but a federal appeals court later overturned that judgement.
As a result, District of Columbia vs Heller will be heard by the Supreme Court - the first time it will have ruled on the Second Amendment since 1939. A ruling is expected in late June.
Why is the case so important?
At the heart of the case will be the Supreme Court justices' interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Added in 1791, it states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The definitive meaning of the sentence, with its odd punctuation and phraseology, has been the subject of much scholarly debate and political argument over the years.
The central question is whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms, or instead protects the collective right of states to maintain militias.
If the justices decide that DC's handgun ban is unconstitutional, the ruling could have an impact on gun control laws across the US - although 44 states have constitutional provisions that protect the right to individual gun ownership.
What are the arguments against the DC handgun ban?
Opponents say it is an unconstitutional ban on an individual liberty protected by the Bill of Rights.
They also argue that there is no clear evidence that DC's gun laws have been effective, pointing to the fact that nearly 80% of DC's 181 murders in 2007 were committed with guns.
This demonstrates that criminals have little trouble getting hold of them, they say, at the same time as the ban prevents those who follow the law from protecting themselves.
Alan Gura, the lead lawyer for Mr Heller, said the laws had "accomplished nothing except to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms".
What are the arguments for maintaining the ban?
DC officials say the ban has made the capital safer because, although illegal handguns still make their way on to the capital's streets, there are fewer legally-owned ones to be stolen or used in domestic incidents.
They warn that gun violence could increase without the law, leading to more deaths.
"Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die," the city wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court last year.
The city also argues that the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual right but was intended to allow states to keep their own armed forces.
Where do the Supreme Court justices stand on the issue?
The case is unusual in that there is little precedent to bind them - and none of the justices has previously ruled directly on the Second Amendment's meaning.
At his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the correct interpretation of the amendment was "still very much an open issue".
The last time the topic was considered by the Supreme Court was in 1939, in US v Miller, but the ruling in that case did not directly address whether the amendment protects individual as opposed to collective rights.
How will the case play into the White House race?
Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee to run for president in November's election, is among a majority in Congress to sign a so-called friend-of-the-court brief supporting the challengers.
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are competing to be the Democratic presidential candidate, have not signed the brief.
Both have said they believe the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun but that the federal government should be able to impose restrictions.
The gun rights lobby is a powerful force in American politics and could potentially use the issue to galvanise conservative voters in November's election.
What is the Bush administration's position?
In 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft backed the interpretation that the Second Amendment protects individual rights - a reversal of long-standing justice department policy.
But Solicitor General Paul Clement wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court that while the amendment preserved an individual right, he believed the appeals court had been wrong categorically to rule DC's handgun ban unconstitutional.
"If adopted by this court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machine guns," he wrote.
Mr Clement said he would like the Supreme Court to send the case back to the lower courts for a more nuanced appraisal.
Vice-President Dick Cheney was among a number of gun rights supporters who criticised Mr Clement's position - and went so far as to sign a friend-of-the-court brief rejecting the administration's view.
Why does gun ownership matter to Americans?
Some observers relate the importance of firearms to the American psyche to the country's relatively recent history as a frontier nation, peopled by settlers who had to be largely self-sufficient.
Many Americans see their right to gun ownership as an essential personal liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - and it is one they are determined to keep.
That attitude is supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a powerful gun rights lobby.
Surveys estimate that there are now 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the US, making it one of the most heavily-armed nations in the world - although that figure covers people who own multiple guns, and many Americans do not possess firearms.
Those who support gun control argue that easy access to guns makes it more likely that they will be used and call for greater restrictions on their sale. Firearms, including handguns, are used in two-thirds of murders and about 42% of robberies committed in the US, according to statistics from the FBI.
Thoughts?
